Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Predicting Intentions

An anonymous reader writes to tell us German scientists claim to have the means of predicting decisions of high level mental activity. "In the past, experts had been able to detect decisions about making physical movements in advance. But researchers at Berlin's Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience claim they have now, for the first time, identified people's decisions about how they would later do a high-level mental activity _ in this case, adding versus subtracting."

11 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. Suspicion by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My first reaction is suspicion.... suspicion of a whole lot of possibilities regardless of whether or not this work has any validity. For instance, I've talked with more than one DOD general who was interested in military applications of electroencephalograms for "mind reading" and such. Certainly there are some applications for lie detection such as the P300, but one has to be very careful about the structure of the interview so as to not attempt to extract non-meaningful information from an evoked potential. My concern is that a whole bunch of additional DARPA type money will suddenly be thrown at the problem and claims will be made that will further impinge upon individual rights and freedoms waaaaaay before even the science is understood (not that understanding science is an excuse to stomp on civil liberties).

    My more immediate concern is of the claims that are being made. The fundamental problem of course is developing a global signature for mind reading that is clean enough to derive robust statistics, keeping in mind that individuals brains are far from uniform in their anatomy, physiology or wiring. Work I performed more than a decade ago revealed similar cortical mapping patterns on subjects who performed tasks and then imagined performing those tasks. Certainly it is possible to determine volitional movements based upon our knowledge of neuroanatomy and statistical averages of wiring, but predicting "intentions" is a whole other ball game. The article is light on details and I've tried a search on more in-depth content, but if they are labeling "intentions" as complex behaviors, my eyebrows will be raised. For instance, determining which of two buttons to press invokes a whole series of kinesthetic volitional programming that should be able to be determined by mapping pre-motor cortex. However, if "intentions" are whether or not to engage in complex behaviors are what they are talking about, there is much more complex circuitry to consider including the possibility of imagery or imagining an action versus actually volitionally engaging in that activity.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Suspicion by nomadic · · Score: 5, Funny

      My first reaction is suspicion

      As I knew it would be!

    2. Re:Suspicion by yali · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here's how this stuff works. Step 1, scientist do incremental, meaningful, but boring (to those outside their specialty) work. Step 2, media picks up on story and puts overreaching spin on story. (Alternatively, the scientists, the journal, or the university's PR office puts out a press release supplying overreaching spin to credulous journalists.) Step 3, everybody sits back in wonderment at a finding that essentially establishes what we already knew: that mental processes take place in the physical brain.

      Parent poster is right about the special demands of individual prediction. The basic science might be incrementally useful - trying to ultimately understand how future planning/intentions take place in the brain. (And given the breadth of mental operations that could be considered "intentions," there are probably hundreds of more studies that need to be done before that question can begin to be answered.) But going from a scientific explanatory mode, where you have potentially large samples and budgets and cooperative subjects, to prediction of individual behavior is a huge leap. Just look at a much older psychometric approach, the TAT, which is okay for research but lousy for individual prediction. Brain scanning may well turn out to be the next TAT, for precisely the same reasons.

      Part of the problem is that a lot of this work is being done by medical researchers and neuroscientists who have no basic training in psychometrics. They're just reinventing old mistakes (but wasting a hell of a lot more money this time around).

    3. Re:Suspicion by venicebeach · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also, fMRI will never be able to predict intentions in real time due to the hemodynamic lag, and is currently practically impossible to analyze online due technical limitations. What they did was use information which occured before the decision to predict which decision was later made. However, this analysis was done after the decision was made . That is to say, after the scans were over, the data from the few seconds before the decision was found to be predictive of which way the decision went. So it's not like they really knew what was going to happen before it did.

  2. devil's advocate by User+956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    researchers at Berlin's Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience claim they have now, for the first time, identified people's decisions about how they would later do a high-level mental activity _ in this case, adding versus subtracting."

    A big portion of the work of prosecution in this country is spent proving intent. For example, the funny-looking guy that hangs out at the playground. Is he a creep, or is he just a birdwatcher? Obviously, a scanning device would figure that out pretty quick.

    (... And I guarantee you that's the same kind of argument they'll make when pushing this thing, too. Because it's all about protecting the children. even at the expense of your fourth amendment rights.)

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  3. I, for one,... by Joe+Random · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...intend on welcoming our mind-reading overlords (as they well know).

  4. I randomize lots of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just because I like variety in my life, I use an external randomizer (flip a coin, roll a die) to decide lots of things...do I go down 10th Street or 9th Street?
    I'm now seeing that this was a very wise decision....
    I do a lot of sub-optimal things, but at least I'm not predicatable

  5. Re:Cool I think by Joe+Random · · Score: 3, Funny

    Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

  6. Whoa. by FlyByPC · · Score: 4, Funny

    Adding and subtracting is "high-level" intellectual activity, now?

    Be afraid. Be very afraid.

    --
    Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
  7. Yes, but... by Halo1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... can they also predict dupes?

    --
    Donate free food here
  8. Re:Pre-Crime by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes, this technology will far and away make crime a risky business. Whether your name is Mohammed or Jerry Maguire, this should be able to separate out the real criminals without any collateral damage. Hopefully though this stays in the hands of a few good men who make all the right moves - ones who aren't swayed by the color of money - or else our society could collapse into a war of the worlds.